United States v. Mead, 72 M.J. 479 (Article 15(f) provides that the imposition and enforcement of nonjudicial punishment for any act or omission is not a bar to trial by court-martial for a serious crime or offense growing out of the same act or omission, and not properly punishable with nonjudicial punishment; but the fact that nonjudicial punishment has been enforced may be shown by an accused at trial, and when so shown, shall be considered in determining the measure of punishment to be adjudged in the event of a finding of guilty).

(Article 15(f) leaves it to the discretion of an accused whether the prior punishment will be revealed to the court-martial for consideration on sentencing; the accused is the gatekeeper with respect to consideration of an NJP record during a court-martial involving the same act or omission).

(in this case, it was clear to the parties and the military judge that appellant raised the issue of the NJP for the military judge’s consideration as prior punishment for one of the charged offenses: (1) appellant stipulated to the NJP as part of his pretrial agreement; (2) he declined to object to the military judge’s statement that it appeared it would be necessary to provide credit against the adjudged sentence because of the NJP; (3) the defense declined to oppose the admission of the NJP during the sentencing hearing; (4) appellant declined to question the military judge’s calculation of the NJP credit or the adjudged sentence; and (5) appellant agreed with the military judge that the convening authority could approve a sentence that included confinement for two years; as such, the military judge considered the NJP and specifically awarded Pierce (27 MJ 367 (CMA 1989)) credit for it; neither Article 15(f) nor appellate case law grants appellant more).

(money forfeited as a result of the reduction in grade imposed at NJP is not punishment imposed by the NJP; rather, it is merely a consequence of the reduction in grade).

2006

United
States v. McKeel, 63 M.J. 81 (the UCMJ preserves the authority of a
senior
commander to ensure accountability for misconduct by limiting the
effect of
nonjudicial punishment imposed by subordinates under Article 15, UCMJ;
if a
subordinate commander imposes nonjudicial punishment for an offense
that is not
minor, the senior commander is not precluded from referring the matter
for
trial by court-martial; when an accused receives a court-martial
sentence for
the same conduct that was punished at an Article 15 proceeding, the
accused has
the opportunity to request a sentence credit under United States v.
Pierce,
27 MJ 367 (CMA 1989)).

2002

United
States v. Bracey, 56 MJ 387 (the protections for
military
personnel against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution
of the United States and Article 44, UCMJ, 10 USC § 844, apply only to
judicial
punishments, not to nonjudicial punishments under Article 15; it is
Article
15(f) that prevents the accused from being punished twice for the same
offense
as a matter of statutory law even though such successive punishment is
otherwise permissible as a matter of constitutional law).

(the credit for NJP previously imposed is not automatic; the accused
is the
gatekeeper on the question as to whether an NJP for a serious offense
will be
brought to the attention of the sentencing authority, and failure to
raise the
issue of mitigation based upon the record of a previous NJP for the
same
offense prior to action by the convening authority waives an allegation
that
the court-martial or convening authority erred by failing to consider
the
record of the prior NJP).

(although United States v. Pierce, 27 MJ 367 (CMA 1989),
precludes
double punishment at NJP and court-martial for the same offense, it
does not
preclude multiple punishments for multiple offenses growing out of the
same
transaction when the offenses are not multiplicious).

(if appellant wanted to introduce facts and obtain a ruling that the
NJP and
the court-martial conviction were for the same offense, the time to do
so was
at trial, not on appeal).